How to Navigate Discussions about the War between Hamas and Israel—A Guide for Universities
Hint: Think in terms of finding questions, not answers.
The past two weeks have seen one university after another stumble on its words, desperately trying not to alienate supporters on either the Israeli or Palestinian side.
To be sure, universities’ longstanding unwritten policy of taking positions on heated issues failed here in part because this one is unusually complicated. For starters, it’s got history, religion, and politics all rolled into one. But the policy also failed because, somewhere along the way, campuses forgot that all contentious issues are complicated. It’s just that, in many cases—like BLM, trans rights, and immigration—campuses, most of which are predominantly left-leaning, are largely unified on the “correct” response. Which means few people complain and those who do are easily ignored.
Now, higher education’s inability to successfully navigate discussions of the horrific events currently unfolding 6000 miles away has revealed how spectacularly unequipped it is to lead the way through complex social problems. The very institution that’s supposed to help us understand the world has been caught trying to color in a nuanced intellectual landscape with jumbo-tipped crayons. And while this has been the case for a long time, it took this deeply radioactive topic to make it fully apparent.
For years now, universities have insisted on seeing the world through the dual lenses of identity (most often, race) and power. And yet, understanding the world in this manner has always been, at best, clumsy and, at worst, born of a long list of unverifiable and untestable assumptions. Assumptions that have led higher education to start with conclusions, rather than with questions.
For instance, few universities explicitly consider the kinds of questions I’ve placed below, instead starting with the answer (provided):
What percent of inequality today can be attributed to discrimination in one form or another? Answer: All of it.
How do you know if racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia has occurred?
Answer: Because someone said it did.
When the issue at hand was the murder of George Floyd or the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, the vocal political consensus on most campuses was dominant enough that little dissent was registered. A cocktail of social pressure, self-censorship, and cancel culture served to keep silent or condemn the intrepid student who might ask whether George Floyd was killed because he was black or because of bad policing. Likewise for the contrarian soul who might be curious whether the jury was right to free Rittenhouse.
Perhaps the seductive pull of seeing the world through the lens of power and race comes from a desire for clean lines. Lighter skin equals more power. The more marginalized the identity, the less power. And if you combine multiple marginalized identities in one person, that person is the least powerful of all. And once we know who has the least power, we know with whom our sympathies should lie.
It wouldn’t be terrible if, through all of this, the idea that life works this way has finally been revealed in its cartoonish glory. Life isn’t a Marvel movie, sketched into heroes, villains, and ignorant people who don’t get on the virtuous side simply because they don’t know any better.
While this categorization has never accurately reflected the world, that hasn’t stopped colleges from trying to tell students it does. We tell them in general education course requirements that teach the “right” way to think about identity, power, and oppression. We tell them in the norms we set in classes—we want a classroom free of offensive language. And we tell them with the never-ending community blast statements on heated issues—defending DACA, condemning Trump, or expressing outrage at every perceived instance of oppression.
To be clear, my claim isn’t that these things are good, and that campuses call them bad—nor is it the reverse. My claim is that, if the goal is to help students understand difficult issues, the framing that sits at the foundation is flawed.
Perhaps now it’s finally time to figure out how to move past this. What does it look like to dig deep instead of digging in? One place to start is by understanding the following.
1. The world is full of people just trying to get through their day, week, life, the best they can. That includes Hamas, Israeli soldiers, Derek Chauvin, Kyle Rittenhouse, and anyone else you can think of. That is not a moral declaration, it’s an observation. And it doesn’t mean that any particular action is justified or acceptable in a broader sense. Although it does mean that the actions are probably justified to the actors themselves. This last point matters if the goal is to have any sort of conversation. And while that ship may have sailed when it comes to this particular conflict (although, hopefully not), it’s all the more reason to take this point seriously going forward.
2. There are no evil people. I don’t mean this in a religious sense. I mean it in a pragmatic one. Since people’s minds often go straight to the example of Hitler when such a wild claim is made, let’s use him. Was he evil? Maybe. But I’ll bet I can plant the tiniest seed of doubt as to whether that’s the case, without in any way defending or minimizing the horror of the Holocaust. What if you learned that Hitler had a brain tumor, or a chemical imbalance that made him the person he was? Or, for that matter, what if you learned that he was raised in an environment that had that effect? The reason we don’t label people as evil isn’t because evil can’t exist. It can. It’s because it would take omniscience to identify it.
3. The concept of evil is unacceptably imprecise. Using the word “evil” is a lazy way out of hard thinking. When I label something this way, I am giving myself permission to not have to think about it anymore. Further, I can morally distance myself from the evildoer and all of his enablers. They are bad and I am good. The problem is that the idea of evil is bottomless, the moral equivalent of the mathematical concept of infinity. After all, infinity plus one is still infinity. And evil plus one good deed is still evil. In other words, when we view someone as categorically evil, there’s no hope for redemption, no chance at understanding, and, perhaps most importantly, we have all we need to justify their annihilation. It’s not that there aren’t circumstances where a swift use of force is warranted. It’s that “evil” simply can’t be the reason. Think of it this way: acts are evil for a reason. State the reason instead.
What does all this mean for universities? It means using the current conflict as an opportunity to ditch oversimplified ways of understanding the world. It means challenging students to come up with questions that reveal the underlying complexity. It means making generating questions, not answering them, the goal. Here are a few examples:
Can Israelis be both aggressors and victims?
Can Palestinians be both aggressors and victims?
Whose claim to victim status matters more?
Whose acts of aggression are worse?
What is the difference between self-defense and unprovoked aggression?
What is the difference between an uprising and unprovoked aggression?
What is the right way to compensate people who have been wronged?
If Israeli forces destroy a hospital where Hamas has hidden weapons, which action is right, and which is wrong?
Can you imagine a set of circumstances where you would behave as Israel has?
Can you imagine a set of circumstances where you would behave as Palestinians have? Or as Hamas has?
What are the Palestinian’s claims to the land based on, according to them?
What are Israel’s claims to the land based on, according to them?
Why has Israel set up blockades? Are they warranted?
Why are there settlements in the West Bank, according to Israel? What about according to critics?
Why was Israel given to the Jews in the first place?
What, if any role, does Hamas play in the low standard of living and high poverty rates in Gaza? Does this matter? Why or why not?
What should Israel do now? Does it have a right to defend itself?
What should the Palestinians do? Is their anger properly directed at Israel? Is it misdirected? If so, in all or part?
And, with all of these: how do you know, who decides, why, and what if you’re wrong?
Universities need to stop shirking their responsibilities and step up. Not as beacons of light, moral purity, or virtue. But as institutions committed to helping students understand that the world is complicated. As places that grow leaders who turn away from the divisiveness of sloppy condemnations. And as campuses committed to teaching that intellectual humility means more than just being willing to be wrong. It means paying attention to the many times you are assuming you’re right without realizing it. And, recognizing that, if you see the world in terms of good and evil, that’s probably much of the time.
The transition to a new equilibrium won’t be easy. Although I’d wager that students would object the least to such a shift. If faculty, instructors—and, of course, donors—won’t go along willingly, then they must go kicking and screaming. Because it’s time for higher education to save itself.
Edited to add: None of this is incompatible with taking a stand or taking a side.
I really appreciate this guide and also find it hard to have these conversations with Jewish people who are really reeling from the brutal events that took place on October 7 and the amount of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish expression they have seen reverberating throughout the world. I have been wrestling with how we can have open discussions when people are processing a lot of shock and pain. Wondering if it is better to give more time and space. On the other hand, I'm in some communities founded on the basis of supporting free speech and heterodox views; and I'm seeing the conversation space narrow, notice people eschewing the basic principles. I am not sure how to most wisely thread this needle.
Ilana,
I understand the frustration you feel and the rhetorical responses to that some universities are expressing.. Myanswers all of your questions i rests on the whether evil exists. The answer is NO. Evil is a cultural construct. The problem is that it is thought of by most religions as an essential fact and that it is a built in attribute to non-believers. The Pope, for god's sake (pun intended) only gave the Jews a pardon for killing Christ only happened a few years ago, as as a Jew I say: really? So evil exists only as political tool to de-humanize those with different belief systems. This is why many wars are often framed as religious.
SO SCRATCH OFF EVIL AS A CAUSE. This does not relieve the Hamas as murderers who should be charged and judged as such. This is also unquestionable. But that is looking backward, which can await until we stop further massacres.
Context can give us some way to move forward. A few actual historical facts can help answer the questions since they can reveal why political entities (governments not regular people) prosper from war.
Most people except combatants would agree that The Palestinians, The Gazens, and the West bank Israelis, are not at fault. Politically one might question the judgement of left-bank settlers - i.e. that is the Israelis who have settled in occupied Palestine. But most of the occupants (not occupiers) are innocent bystanders. They are the pawns and the victims.
The answers to the other questions are multi-dimensional. They all ask who is right and who is wrong. First and probably foremost the question must be put into pertinent historical context, which can itself be multi- faceted depending when you start the time machine. One must consider the actions of the WWII Allies that put a Jewish state in an already occupied territory. Palestine did exist as a geographic entity and now it barely does. Of vourse, the Jewish culture (not race) had been politically brutalized before WWII of course; one need only turn to the often mythologized Ferdinand and Isabella. (Their caskets are set side-beside holding hands and often described as a "loving couple'. The sent Columbus to invade north America while at the same time killed or exiled all Catholoics during the 15th century inqiusitions. So who is right and who is wrong; One could look here at The UK, The US and their allies. Remember the boats of soon to be gassed that FDR sent back to Europe They were acting in largely in political expediency and ultimately "mandated" Palestine to the Israeli's
Ultimately, the political context is made up of war-makers and arms dealers. Following the money in a capitalist world usually leads to the center of war and oppression. Forever wars are the way of the 20th and 21st centure - Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan.
THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES
Very briefly:
a. Universities don't act.
b.Presidents and Boards of Trustees are in charge of university wide statements.
So, how should universities respond to national or international problems? They need to not assume dissent is immoral and unpatriotic, but those with authority needs to pump up the intellectual resources of the university to inform the community at large. As educational institutions, where I worked for 45 years as a professor and a dean they should educate. The problem is that rather than go to their strength as a community knowledge resource; they go the other way and retrench by cancelling speakers, courses and even student protests.